Before your LDS family and friends in Utah, Idaho, and Arizona blindly vote straight “Republican” once again, I strongly encourage you to call them and point out that the Republican Party they think they are supporting no longer exists.
Sarah Longwell, publisher of The Bulwark, recently published a piece in which she documented the removal from power of more moderate Republicans and the corruption of those who wished to stay in power. “The party’s over,” she said. “The Good Republican,” has been driven to “near extinction.”
The great Republican purge
Normal GOP politicians who don’t want to swim in the right-wing infotainment cesspool are deemed traitors for throwing in with the “corporate media” and so lose credibility with GOP audiences. Which makes it virtually impossible for them to have a future in the Republican party.
Sarah Longwell
Since the early 1990s, ultra-conservative Republicans have been using the acronym “RINO” (Republican In Name Only) as a pejorative to label members of their own party that they considered insufficiently loyal to their far right-wing ideology. This quickly became a very successful tool used in Republican primary elections to defeat moderate Republicans.
It used to puzzle me how this tactic could be successful. What, I thought, gives one Republican the right to tell another Republican they are NOT a Republican? Doesn’t each person in America have the right to decide for themselves which party, if any, they wish to align themselves with? Why would anyone believe and act on this meaningless insult? But, this clumsy insult has been used for decades now and has served to severely radicalize the Republican party.
The end of political civility
Republican Congressman Newt Gingrich, who became Speaker of the House in 1995, trained Republican candidates in his savage “always attack, never concede” version of politics and directed the House Republican caucus to oppose President Clinton at every turn and on every issue – regardless of what might be good for the nation as a whole.
With the creation of the propaganda channel, FauxNews, in 1996, right-wing Republicans had a loud megaphone to both demonize Democrats and to spread their version of what the Republican party should be. The Republican party they wanted was deliberately intended to become ignorant, arrogant, intolerant, alarmist, racist, misogynistic, resentful, easily enraged, and indifferent to the truth.
The more intellectuals, experts, and moderates left, or were chased out of, the party, the more compliant and manipulable the remaining Republicans became.
Enter the Orange One
In the Republican party as it is currently constituted, political power emanates completely and totally from Donald Trump. With vanishingly few exceptions, a Republican cannot be openly opposed to Trump on any grounds — even on simple matters of fact, such as who won the 2020 elections — and retain political power.
Sarah Longwell
In 2016, this restless, indignant, lesser-educated, group saw their opportunity with Donald J. Trump to take over the Republican party. With the help of our antiquated and undemocratic Electoral College system, they actually managed to make him President.
Trump can be defined by his ignorance and his insecurity. These two primary aspects of his personality combined long ago to create his often-used defense mechanism – which is arrogance and constant lying. When he cannot face reality, either because he doesn’t understand it or because the situation doesn’t feed his ego, he spontaneously creates a new reality out of thin air.
When he lost the 2020 election, rather than accept the truth and allow the peaceful transfer of power (which is the hallmark of a functioning democracy), he launched a multi-pronged campaign to overthrow our Constitution and remain in power. He failed, but loyalty to his Big Lie has now become a litmus test for Republican candidates.
The complete corruption of the Republican party
To be a Republican in good standing today, you have to make a devil’s bargain.
Sarah Longwell
Sadly (and frighteningly), this dangerous man’s influence on the Republican party is now stronger than ever. To use a metaphor, the foxes have now completely taken over the hen house. Even the most politically conservative Republican politician is not welcome in the party unless they bow before Trump and his subversion of the Constitution.
The most well-known example of this is what happened to Wyoming Republican Representative Liz Cheney. But there have been many more – including LDS Arizona Republican Senator Jeff Flake and LDS Arizona Republican State House Speaker Rusty Bowers. They were purged from office by the Republican party because they refused to be corrupted by Trumpism.
Others, including LDS Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee, have given up any morals and integrity they may once have had and wholeheartedly jumped on the Trump bandwagon.
I fear for the Saints
My concern here is, how can ANY member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider it OK to make this bargain with the devil? How can ANY member of the Church consider it OK to support a political party, or any of its candidates, when that party, and those candidates REFUSE to defend the Constitution of the United States and REFUSE to denounce Donald J. Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 Presidential election?
How can those who profess to follow the Prince of Peace continue to support and defend this Master of Lies? Surely this election would be a good time for Republican Latter-day Saints to wake up and repent? Our country is at immediate risk of an authoritarian fascist takeover. Surely we should not be helping it to succeed?
Parting thought
This new party that has replaced the Republican party really should just be honest and change their name. My suggestion would be the “North American Zero Integrity” party.
Source:
Sarah Longwell, “The End of the Good Republicans,” The Bulwark, October 17, 2022.
About the Photo:
This sand sculpture of a distraught Honest Abe was the winner of Texas Sandfest 2019. It was made by sculptor Damon Langlois of Victoria British Columbia, who is also known as “SandyMan.”
First you convince them that being a Democrat is sinful and akin to following the Devil. Then start the middle-school-like name calling of weaker Republicans RINOs. Soon you have a group of people that are used to being part of a group where they can feel righteous with both struggling to call things out for what they may not like but also guilty at thinking about changing to something else, so they double down and believe there is a “new” right way. How sad. Latter-day Saints, used to following a prophet, seem to need to be able to look for someone to follow politically as well. Many have not taken the teachings of the church to heart to realize that we all stand before God at the last day as individuals accountable for our own actions. With that understanding they should start thinking for themselves about what is right and what is wrong and then act on it themselves, not waiting for the rest of the group to come along. Remember, half the virgins go along thinking all is well. So just like in Middle School, I don’t care what name they call me, I’m going to vote and act politically as a someone who can stand up for justice and equality for ALL.
I remember before the 2016 election seeing Garrison Keillor comment that if Mitt Romney had won in 2012, he would have been disappointed, but would not have worried about the future of the Republic. Since the 2016 election, we have the term “Doom scrolling” as an apt label for how we approach the news. I empathize with the feeling behind the question, “how can ANY member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider it OK to make this bargain with the devil?”
But I have also understood that politics does not occur in discourse of shared assumptions and values but as a competition between different assumptions and values. And the key that defines and binds particular social segments are not the facts of the matter but the controlling narrative in which certain issues predominate. So it’s less a matter of looking at the facts behind the issues but at the narratives that highlight certain issues as most important. Is the best narrative the one that gets you power to impose your preferred policies, or is it the one that most accurately describes things as they were, as they are, and as they are to come? I think of the way that politicians like Lindsay Graham occasionally speak against Trump, such as before the 2016 election, and after the 2021 Insurrection, but when principle collides with political reality, he quickly makes the pilgrimage and shamelessly kisses the orange buttocks as a means to “stay relevant.” Some of my earliest memories of growing up as a boomer were of seeing a book in the house called Profiles in Courage and watching episodes of a TV show dramatizing some of the accounts in the book, including the story of Alexander Doniphan defending Joseph Smith. There are a few notable profiles in courage to consider, including Liz Cheney, and Rusty Bowers, but many, all too many like Graham who become profiles in spinelessness and accommodation. As well as ideologues for whom morality reduces to whether a person is on your side, regardless of Christian morality.
Elder Oaks spoke in conference in April 2021 saying “We are to be governed by law and not by individuals, and our loyalty is to the Constitution and its principles and processes, not to any office holder. In this way, all persons are to be equal before the law. These principles block the autocratic ambitions that have corrupted democracy in some countries.”
Further that “We should learn and advocate the inspired principles of the Constitution. We should seek out and support wise and good persons who will support those principles in their public actions. We should be knowledgeable citizens who are active in making our influence felt in civic affairs.”
Knowledgeable citizens should be less influenced by fear mongering over immigrants and moral panics over things like Critical Race Theory (which no critic has accurately described or actually found outside of University settings).
So we hope for the nation to live up to the ideals on the Statue of Liberty, but then we have those who, say, consider making all abortion illegal, or more tax cuts for the wealthy so desirable as to mitigate a multitude of sins. Oaks says “There are many political issues, and no party, platform, or individual candidate can satisfy all personal preferences. Each citizen must therefore decide which issues are most important to him or her at any particular time. Then members should seek inspiration on how to exercise their influence according to their individual priorities. This process will not be easy. It may require changing party support or candidate choices, even from election to election.”
“Such independent actions will sometimes require voters to support candidates or political parties or platforms whose other positions they cannot approve.”
Even if those kinds of issues are the most important ones for you personally, it is still important to understand the other positions and implications. When asked what kind of government we had, Ben Franklin famously replied, “A democracy, if you can keep it.” And that issue ought to be seen as in the balance.